So one day recently I was bored, and then the following rushed onto the page:
Half of a big pizza is equal to two small pizzas – rewrite this in as precise way as possible.
Is this 3 hours or 1/4 of a pizza?
How many hours equals 1/4 of a pizza?
Apologies to those for whom a clock face is a historical artifact.
How do I know it’s a pizza and not a cake?
Does half a day include half the night?
There are four feet in our yard, mine and my sister’s.
Would you prefer 1/2 of a round pizza or 1/2 of a square pizza?
Are ratios numbers or fractions (or neither) ?
Fractions are parts of the same whole. OK, I’ll have 5 quarters of that pizza (5/4 is a fraction, isn’t it?)
You cut, I choose !
This year fractions are parts of a whole. Next year fractions will be numbers. I guess the other party won the election.
2/3 and 4/6 are equivalent fractions. Equivalent to what ?
The word “fraction” has the same root as “fracture”. So something got broken. I think it was my faith in common sense.
The Common Core test question asked – How long is 3.25 hours. This could be 3 hours and 25 minutes or 3 hours and 15 minutes. I guess it depends on the grade level.
Back to the heavy stuff next time !
Filed under fractions, humor
I have seen some heavy handed ways of explaining the identity
a – (b + c) = a – b – c
Let us use algebra. Give the left hand side a name, say d .Then
a – (b + c) = d
This is an equation, so add (b+c) to each side and get
a = d + (b + c), then a = d + b + c as the parentheses are now superfluous.
Now subtract b from each side
a – b = d + c
Now subtract c from each side
a – b – c = d
so a – (b + c) = a – b – c
or is this too simple ? Look, no messing with p – q = p + -(q) stuff,
and no appeal to the famous distributive law.
You can do this, and other stuff, with numbers as well.
The derivative of the log function can be investigated informally, as log(x) is seen as the inverse of the exponential function, written here as exp(x). The exponential function appears naturally from numbers raised to varying powers, but formal definitions of the exponential function are difficult to achieve. For example, what exactly is the meaning of exp(pi) or exp(root(2)).
So we look at the log function:-
It’s a nice breezy day but just check the weather map!
Filed under humor, weather
This was found on “talking math with your kids” as an example of the “strange” stuff that kids bring home and cause mystification in their parents.
“The whole is 8. One part is 8. What is the other part ?”.
Just what exactly is this supposed to mean?
That the whole always consists of two parts?
Since when did numbers have parts?
What is the definition of “part”?
Even if we are talking about 8 things, then the natural AND logical answer is “There isn’t another part”.
If I want to see ways of creating 8, using adding, then what is wrong with
8=1+7 8=2+6 8=3+5 … 8=7+1 and 8=8+0 for completeness’ sake.
To call zero a part of 8 is going to lay the groundwork for a feeling that math hasn’t got a lot to do with real life, which is a crying shame. This feeling can arise at any stage, we should give reality a chance at this level. To conclude “What a stupid question!”.
In the extended number system of signed numbers, that is, the positive and negative numbers I see a lot of heart searching over the meaning of -(-2). This can be put to rest in one or both of two quite satisfactory ways:
1: Signed numbers are directed numbers, used for position, temperature, voltage etcetera. The basic question is “How far apart are the two numbers A and B ?”, or more useful in a practical situation “How far is it from A to B ?”.
This is a subtraction problem with direction and the answer is B – A
For A=3 and B=7 we get
Distance from A to B = B – A = 7 – 3 = 4
For A=-3 and B=7 we get
Distance from A to B = B – A = 7 – (-3) = ???????????????
But a quick look at a number line shows that the distance is 10
So 7 – (-3) = 10
But 7 + 3 = 10 as well
Conclusion: -(-3) = +3
2: A simple and more abstract approach:
Starting with 7 – (-3) = ??????????????? we give a name to the unknown answer. Call it D.
Then using the basic fact that 12 – 4 = 8 is equivalent to 12 = 8 + 4 we have
7 – (-3) = D is equivalent to 7 = D + (-3)
7 = D + (-3) is equivalent to 7 = D – 3
7 = D – 3 is equivalent to 7 + 3 = D
which says that D = 10
So subtracting -3 is the same as adding 3
A meaningful example is as follows:
My friend from Anchorage calls me and says “It’s cold here this morning, -5 degrees”.
Down here in Puerto Rico it’s 68 degrees this morning.
How much warmer is it here than in Alaska?
I borrowed this from http://fivetriangles.blogspot.com/
184. *** Overlapping sectors
In the diagram is rectangle ABCD with height 10 cm. An arc with centre at point B is drawn from point A to side BC. An arc with centre at point C is drawn from point D to side BC. Given that the shaded (coloured) regions ⓐ and ⓑ have equal area, determine the length of BC.
The extension is “and where do the quarter circles cross?”
It could be a two line calculation !
With all the stuff in the high school geometry about proving congruence by rigid motions we get this sample geometry question from PARCC
(get the rest from numberwarrior here)
Numberwarrior’s concerns are about the language and the formal properties of congruence and I agree with him on this.
My concerns are about the stated claims of the CCSS to specify the “What do the need to know/understand/be able to do”, and the PARCC test which says “This is HOW you do a proof”.
In this particular example there are other ways of proving the assertion, not least those using the definition of congruence by rigid motions.
Let us do it this way:
1: vertical angles are equal, as there is a rotation of line AD to GC through the angle CBD, and then AD is on top of GC, so angle
ABD ABF is also the angle of rotation, and is therefore congruent to angle CBD
2:There is a translation of line HE to line AD, as they are parallel. So the translation of H to H’ puts H’ on the line AD, and so angle H’BF is congruent to angle ABF.
3: But angles are preserved by rigid motions, so angle H’BF is congruent to HFG, and therefore angle ABF and HFG are congruent.
So, if I chose to teach about proof using this approach (my “HOW”) the students won’t even understand the question. Test items MUST be “Method Free”.
Also, the so called Reflexive, Symmetric and Transitive properties of congruence are no different from a=a, if a=b then b=a, and if a=b and b=c then a=c for numbers, and in both situations these are so STUNNINGLY obvious that it is cluttering up the minds of the learners to burden them with this sort of stuff. It is clear to me that this is a contribution to the CCSS from the sole pure mathematician on the committee.
A simple diagram with original axes in blue.
The coordinates of point E are (1,1)
A translation defined by x -> x + 2, y -> y + 1 moves point E to point D, with coordinates (3,2)
If the x axis is moved 2 steps left and the y axis is moved one step down then the coordinates of the original point E in the moved axes are (3,2)
This will be the case for any original point – the coordinates of each one of them will be the same as the coordinates of their new positions under the translation (in the original coordinate system).
This can be seen to be true for the other rigid motions, for example
rotation about the origin through an angle theta is equivalent to a rotation about the origin of the axes through an angle minus theta. So there is a one to one correspondence between rigid motions and change of axes (scales preserved).
On a lighter note, it does seem easier to rotate a pair of axes than rotating the whole plane ! ! !